The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the termination of an Additional Government Pleader and Additional Government Advocate posted in Shivpuri, holding that a stigmatic termination order cannot be sustained when no regular departmental inquiry has been conducted. The Court directed the State Government to reinstate the advocate while leaving it free to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
Background of the Case
Petitioner Manoj Singh Raghuwanshi was appointed as an Additional Government Pleader and Additional Government Advocate in June 2021. During the conduct of a murder trial arising from Crime No. 204/2021, the names of certain eyewitnesses were not included in the witness list at the initial stage.
According to the petitioner, the omission was inadvertent and was corrected immediately after it came to light. The witnesses were subsequently examined before the trial court. However, while dealing with a bail application in the criminal case, the trial court directed the State authorities to examine whether the omission was deliberate or merely negligent.
Following this, the Law Department conducted a fact-finding exercise and issued show-cause notices. More than three years later, the State terminated the petitioner's services on the ground of alleged serious negligence.
Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat noted that the termination order attributed serious negligence to the petitioner and therefore carried a stigma. The Court observed that such an order could have adverse consequences on a person's future professional prospects and could not be issued without following due process.
The Court emphasized that the petitioner was neither served with a charge-sheet nor subjected to a regular departmental inquiry. It also found that the impugned order was non-speaking and did not disclose reasons supporting the decision.
Referring to settled principles of natural justice, the Court observed that an affected person must be given a meaningful opportunity to defend himself, including the opportunity to challenge allegations and present evidence.
“The impugned order, being stigmatic, non-speaking, and unreasoned, has been passed without following due process,” the Court held.
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the termination order dated 13 March 2025. The Court directed the State authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service.
At the same time, it clarified that the State would remain at liberty to take appropriate action against him in accordance with law, if it considered such action necessary.
Case Details:
Case Title: Manoj Singh Raghuwanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 12292 of 2025
Judge: Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat
Decision Date: 17 June 2026
